On January 7th, 2026 Renee Nicole Good was shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis and she did not survive.
We’ve all seen the videos from several angles and contrary to the statements put out by Kristi Noem, VP JD Vance, President Trump, and Press Sec. Karoline Leavitt, and countless Republican(s), and right-wing media outlets, this was not done in self defense or the result of an act of terrorism on the part of Renee Good.
There is tons of video out now showing many different angles of what happened. The one I want to start with is the one that showed a few minutes before the shooting- https://www.wesh.com/article/dhs-video-minutes-before-ice-shooting-renee-good/69966509
We can clearly see that there are several vehicles on the street, and we see Renee Goods vehicle partially blocking the street but vehicles are going around her successfully. She isn’t trying to ram them or prevent them from passing in any way. There are also several ICE agents on foot and some civilians, all walking around. Renee Good is not trying to hit them or run them down.
In the original video that was released – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS6SAb-__HE&list=RDNSSS6SAb-__HE&start_radio=1
You can see Renee waving a vehicle by, that vehicle goes by without issue. A truck pulls up and Renee waves again but they stop and get out- My first question is why? Other ICE vehicles had gone by without issue up to this point so why did this one have to stop and immediately go toward Renee’s vehicle? One of the ICE agents immediately goes for her door and pulls on it telling her to get (the fu**) out, at the same time another ICE agent rounds the front of her car.
Here’s that ICE agents cell phone video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDA4zEvxjJc
In his video, he exists a vehicle that is on the other side of Renee’s and circles her vehicle before heading back where he came from, Renee is calm, not yelling, not threatening, not swearing, nothing that would seem to be indicative of someone who is dangerous or posing a grave threat to anyone. She is in fact communicating that she is “not mad” at the agent in a calm demeanor. Her wife is mildly more interactive but still not exactly threatening or displaying threatening behavior while filming and commenting that their plates aren’t changed (out) and they would be the same when they are found later (paraphrasing). We also see a dog in the back seat of Renee’s vehicle. The officer then heads back toward the front of her vehicle as we hear the other agents telling her to get out.
So, from Renee’s perspective we know two agents got out of a truck, headed right for her vehicle, one barking commands and reaching for and pulling on her door, while another agent rounds the front of her car. If I were a woman, sitting alone in a car, and masked, armed men were rapidly and seemingly angrily approaching my car, yelling at me to “get out of the fucking car”, and reaching for and pulling on my door when I wasn’t doing anything, I would be fearing for my safety, freaking out, and trying to get away as quickly as possible.
We clearly see Renee turn her wheels away from the ICE agents after backing up slightly. The ICE agent that fired the shots positioned himself in front of her vehicle and was seemingly drawing his weapon as her wheels turned away from him and she started to lurch forward. He was bumped, but oddly still had the presence of mind to keep filming the whole time while under “extreme threat”. He fired a shot into the windshield and then two more into the drivers side front window as the car turned away from him.
At no point was the officer dragged, pinned, or in any way under the vehicle. His legs remained out of the way as well. He was bumped slightly as he moved left and she drove right. She did not aim her car toward them at any point.
DOJ 1-16.200 set rules for use of deadly force – https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force#1-16.200
This instance does not seem to meet the standard to use deadly force. And back to my original question of why were the ICE agents approaching her vehicle? They could’ve driven by without issue. It would’ve been the simple choice and in my opinion, outside of intimidation and show of force, there was no other reason to engage. If they really needed to do something, they could’ve had local PD write her a ticket for blocking the road way.
The ICE agents also refused to render immediate aid and barred a self identified doctor access to render aid.
For scale and to countermand the statements given by DHS Sec. Kristi Noem saying this was an act of domestic terrorism, the definition of domestic terrorism is – Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature (FBI definition).
I think of the Oklahoma City bombing 1995, not some lady partially blocking traffic on an icy residential street while other folks film what ICE agents are doing, which is a constitutionally protected activity.
This case has also been done before, or at least a fairly close second – ADAMS V SPEERS, No. 05-15159 (9th Cir. 2007) While the facts differ, the case found that:
Key Legal Findings
- Creation of Danger: An officer cannot intentionally place themselves in harm’s way and then use deadly force to neutralize the danger they created.
- Shooting into Moving Vehicles: The court emphasized that shooting into a moving vehicle to stop a fleeing suspect is often unconstitutional, especially when there is no immediate threat to the officer or others.
- Tactical Expectation: The Ninth Circuit highlighted that modern police training and constitutional expectations favor tactical disengagement and containment over escalating a situation to deadly force
Factual Context
The case stemmed from a pursuit where Officer Speers fired into a vehicle. The court noted the absence of a warning and the lack of immediate danger to the officer or bystanders, distinguishing it from other cases where force was deemed “reasonable”. It is frequently cited in legal training to illustrate that officers who violate established de-escalation protocols may lose their immunity from lawsuits
I would hope that justice will be done but the administration has already seen fit to go on the offensive and flood the zone with political spin and demonize anything that remotely contradicts the party line. Ridiculous. The FBI barring local PD from being involved in investigations is also not a good sign that actual justice will be served.
As citizens, now more then ever, we have to stand against this tyranny and hold those in power accountable for the abuses of power. Everything shouldn’t be a death sentence.
“Comply or die” seems wildly familiar and pretty sure this was the justification for racially motivated police shootings over the last several decades. Haven’t we learned this lesson already ? You would think after the myriad officer involved murders that have been splashed across media, that both sides would understand that an armed person, badge or not, is a threat. Period. Full Stop. The second the gun comes out, someone is going to die. Nobody ever shoots to disable, even though that would be a smart thing to do.
Put yourself on the other side. A masked, armed, and angry person approaching, is an immediate threat. Badge or not. Officers constantly state they feel threatened by the mere possibility that there is a weapon on someone. How do you think the public feels ? Every officer is armed and trained how to kill. We have no idea if your training covered anything else or if you took it in, or if you care. You are an armed individual that can kill us without any consequences in most cases due to your “qualified immunity”. How about qualified accountability? The more qualified you are, the more responsibility you carry and are held to account for. Try only shooting someone as the absolute last resort. Learn how to shoot people in the leg or something, instead of always going for the kill shot.
I’m not saying all officers are bad, or that all ICE agents are bad. I am saying not everyone should have a badge or gun, and those that do, need to be held to account. The bad apples need to go, for all our sakes.